It is amazing that our secretary of state, George Shultz, refused to submit to a lie detector test. More so, it is astonishing that his adamant attitude negated the White House directive.
What would have been the fate of the directive if one other than George had taken the same stand?
It is not a question of whether the procedure was right or wrong. The courts could decide that issue. It is indeed a question if directives should be all inclusive or not. No one man should be deemed so important that he can overturn presidential directives.
The secretary of state is quoted as stating that when "I'm not trusted (that) is the day I leave."
Won't it be interesting to know what history has to say about his refusal?